Awarding of punishment

2024 SCMR 1722 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 48 & 58Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)Termination from serviceTen days' absence without leaveMisconductAwarding of punishmentObject, purpose and scope

Petitioner/workman was terminated from service for absent being from duty without leave for a period of more than ten days

Trial forum did not consider absence for such period as misconduct therefore, reinstated the petitioner/workman in service

Lower Appellate Forum set aside order of reinstatement and High Court maintained that order

Validity

National Industrial Relation Commission (Trial forum) in its original order overturned the law and ordered reinstatement but it did not keep in mind doctrine of proportionality and reasonableness and modified act of misconduct from 10 days' absence to 15 days' absence

Full Bench of National Industrial Relation Commission (Lower Appellate Forum) rightly set aside such order in appeal which was affirmed by High Court

Addressing of misconduct aids, keeps an eye on and protects wellbeing of the organization and its employees in order to make sure that the workplace is in a trouble free environment

It is prerogative and inherent right of employer to trigger disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law to address misconduct, if committed by any employee but course of action for encountering any act of misconduct should stick to the principle of natural justice and the set of guidelines provided to ensure due process of law

Wrong handling of misconduct cases results in bad impact on industrial relations and also adversely affects trust level between management and workers

It is also essential for employer to maintain transparency, uniformity and egalitarianism, which insinuates compliance of all legal requirements with equal treatment to employees without any discrimination or favoritism

Supreme Court declined to interfere in order passed by High Court and Lower Appellate Forum

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

2024 PLC 278 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 48 & 58Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 15Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)Termination from serviceTen days' absence without leaveMisconductAwarding of punishmentObject, purpose and scope

Petitioner/workman was terminated from service for being absent from duty without leave for a period of more than ten days

Trial forum did not consider absence for such period as misconduct therefore, reinstated the petitioner/workman in service

Lower Appellate Forum set aside order of reinstatement and High Court maintained that order

Validity

National Industrial Relation Commission (Trial forum) in its original order overturned the law and ordered reinstatement but it did not keep in mind doctrine of proportionality and reasonableness and modified act of misconduct from 10 days' absence to 15 days' absence

Full Bench of National Industrial Relation Commission (Lower Appellate Forum) rightly set aside such order in appeal which was affirmed by High Court

Addressing of misconduct aids, keeps an eye on and protects wellbeing of the organization and its employees in order to make sure that the workplace is in a trouble free environment

It is prerogative and inherent right of employer to trigger disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law to address misconduct, if committed by any employee but course of action for encountering any act of misconduct should stick to the principle of natural justice and the set of guidelines provided to ensure due process of law

Wrong handling of misconduct cases results in bad impact on industrial relations and also adversely affects trust level between management and workers

It is also essential for employer to maintain transparency, uniformity and egalitarianism, which insinuates compliance of all legal requirements with equal treatment to employees without any discrimination or favoritism

Supreme Court declined to interfere in order passed by High Court and Lower Appellate Forum

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

2017 CLC 1070 SINDH-BAR-COUNCIL-DISCIPLINARY-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

S. 41MisconductAwarding of punishmentPer-condition

Disciplinary Tribunal, under S.41 of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, may award punishments of reprimand, suspension, removal from practice or payment of compensation

Before awarding punishment, Tribunal must firstly be satisfied that "professional or other misconduct" has been committed.

2016 PCrLJ 1854 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 53Awarding of punishmentPurpose behind infliction of sentence

Purpose behind infliction of sentence, was two fold; firstly, it would create such atmosphere, which could become a deterrence for the people, who had inclination towards crime; secondly, to work as a medium in reforming the offenders

Sentence should be neither so severe that offenders could, out of frustration, become desperate and hardened criminals; nor should it be so mild that it encouraged the offender to commit the offence again

Courts, while judging adequacy of the sentence, were required to consider different factors, such as, previous conviction, circumstances, mode and manners, in which offence, was committed, age and character of offender, heinousness of crime, injury to individuals and the society etc.

2013 YLR 895 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 324, 337-C, 337-D & 337-F(iii)Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, Jaifah, causing MutalahimahAppreciation of evidenceAwarding of punishment

If the injury would extend to the body cavity of the trunk, the offender would be liable to punishment under S.337-D, P.P.C.

In the present case no reference or opinion of doctor was on record to the effect that the injury extended to the body cavity of the trunk; instead there was mere reference of an entry and exit wound in the report

Prosecution had failed to bring on record anything in black and white to substantiate that the injury had caused any danger or affected the body cavity of the trunk of injured complainant

In absence of any such evidence, accused could not be convicted on mere presumption that locale of the injury might have affected the cavity of the trunk of the victim

In absence of any cogent evidence in such regard, conviction recorded under S.337-D, P.P.C. was not sustainable and accused was acquitted from that charge

By virtue of second part of S.324, P.P.C., accused was also liable to punishment for the hurt caused

Medical report of the injured showed that he sustained firearm injury which caused entry as well as exit; and the bullet injury could not be termed to cause rupture of skin or incision of flesh, it would be a laceration of the flesh, falling within the ambit of S.337-F(iii), P.P.C. "Mutalahimah", as neither the bone had been shown to be exposed nor fracture had been caused

Basic punishment provided for S.337-F(iii), P.P.C., was "Daman", whereas the punishment of imprisonment was discretionary

In case of single firearm injury and in absence of any previous criminal record of accused, he was convicted under S.337-F(iii), P.P.C. and sentenced to pay Rs.50,000 as 'Daman'

Sentence awarded under S.324, P.P.C. by the Trial Court was maintained, in circumstances.